240mm lens for 8x10"

[Tim V]

Hi again,

I'm still tyre kicking wide lenses fo 8x10". I'd still prefer a 210mm lens with good room for movements (I'm looking at Fuji W, Graphic-Kowa and Computar f9 options), but thought it prudent to start reseraching alternatives, even if they aren't quite as wide as I'd like.

I see a lot of Schneider APO Symmar lenses for sale on the auction site at what seems like reasonable prices, but I'm not quite clear on the coverage or recommended format. I'm talking about lenses that are marked as APO-Symmar 5x6/240 Multicoat (no letter designation) which by my research seem to have a 352mm IC and in Copal 3 shutter. Is this correct? Going simply by that information I'm inclined to think it might be a good interum choice as a moderate 8x10" wide angle (if I lose out on finding a good 210mm), but sniffing around further it seems Schneider themselves recommended it be used for 5x7". What's the general concensus for this lens? Is it a good choice for shooting 8x10 if one doesn't want to spend the earth?

What about the Rodenstock APO Sironar N 240mm MC, IC of 350mm(?) and marked 72º? (It's also recommended by Rodenstock for 5x7" use.) I see these aren't badly priced either, and IC seems to indicate it'd be okay on 8x10" with movements?

I've used a 10" Wide Field Ektar before and loved it, espeically the huge IC. I see they are selling for quite a bit now, but how do they actually compare to the above? I'm assuming it'll be much sharper when getting near the limits of the other lenses IC?

Thanks again, just trying to do my research before it comes time to buy. 8x10" lenses are somewhat new territory for me, having come from 4x5" and digital medium format capture using Linhof cameras and Rodenstock digital lenses. I'm catching up on what the market is like and where the happy middle ground ballance of performance VS cost of entry can be found...

Tim

[Mark Darragh]

Hello Tim,
If you are willing to live with a little less coverage (336mm I believe), consider the Fujinon 240 A. They are compact, light and very sharp. A great lens for both 4x5 and 8x10.

All the best with your search.

[arthur berger]

Hi Tim:
Consider the 250mm Fuji 6.7 inside lettering single coated as an alternative to a 240 mm lens. I used to use a 10 inch wide field ektar also but happily switched to the fuji
for smaller size and smaller lens board. I never looked back and couldnt be happier with the Fuji. I also use the 210 Fuji with 8x10.
All the best,
Arthur

[Pere Casals]

IMHO in one side you have the choice of a Fujinon A f/9 at 225gr, or a faster f/5.6 lens like R. Sironar, Symmar-S or Nikon W at around 800gr.

For hiking the A floats in the air, for portraiture I'd prefer a f/5.6 beast.

[Ari]

Hi Tim:
Consider the 250mm Fuji 6.7 inside lettering single coated as an alternative to a 240 mm lens. I used to use a 10 inch wide field ektar also but happily switched to the fuji
for smaller size and smaller lens board. I never looked back and couldnt be happier with the Fuji. I also use the 210 Fuji with 8x10.
All the best,
Arthur

I'd agree with Arthur wholeheartedly here about the 250 f6.7
Inexpensive, small (Copal 1 shutter), very good performer, and massive coverage.
Can be used for portraits or as a general-purpose semi-wide.
I never liked the 210-W on 8x10, though it covers well enough. I'm not sure exactly why, probably because the sweet spot of the lens falls somewhere between 4x5 and 5x7, and the flaws become more apparent on 8x10.

[Alan9940]

I have both the Fuji 250/6.7 and the Fuji A 240. Both a great lenses, but I much prefer the 240 A; especially for backpacking the 8x10.

[Michael Kadillak]

Coverage with 240mm lenses is an issue on 8x10 that one needs to properly attend to if shooting infinity. The exceptions I have used where this is not an issue are the 240mm Computar and the 250mm Wide Field Ektar. I have experience vignetting with the 250mm F6.7 Fuji although in retrospect I was likely pushing it with both rise and tilt. Live and learn as they say.

That being said I am really enjoying the Docter 240mm W F9 lens in Copal 1 that is multi coated and very small and light. It is my favorite macro and semi macro lens with this format and as long as you check your corners (as I continue to remind myself with all lenses) you are good to go.

[MAubrey]

A 240 Dagor would get the job done, too, with plenty of coverage.

[John Kasaian]

I have both 250mm WF Ektar and 240 G Claron. No complaints. How they compare with Fuji, Symmar and the rest I couldn't tell you
I do like the WF Ektar for architecture---huge coverage.

[Alan Gales]

I own the Fuji 250/6.7 lens. It feels like the 35mm lens for my old Contax 35mm camera. I paid $300 for my Fuji lens a few years ago but have since seen them go for $250 and even less. They are a bargain!

Why not buy both a 210 and a 240 or 250 lens. If you are shooting a certain subject and really need more coverage you can always compromise and swap the 240/250 for the 210.

You could also pony up the bucks for a Schneider 165mm Super Angulon. They will run you north of $1000 and weigh as much as a boat anchor though.

Of course you could also just shoot a 90 on 4x5.

Shooting 8x10 can be full of compromises at the short focal lengths.

[Luis-F-S]

A 240 Dagor would get the job done, too, with plenty of coverage.

++1 and if that's too rich for your budget, try the 240 G-Claron. L

[Vaughn]

A f6.7 lens is around twice as bright as an f9 lens. I work under a lot of low-light situations where that is very helpful -- the weight difference can be unimportant relative to ease of use. That said, my Fuji W 360/6.3 is an anchor...but that is also used on the 11x14 where it actually looks small.

[Peter De Smidt]

Don't forget the 240mm Doctor Optics Germinar. Small, multi-coated, sharp.

[Drew Wiley]

I've used the Fuji 250/6.7, the 240 A, and the 250 G-Claron. The real-world coverage stopped down is almost identical, and differs only wide open where you get a tad of mechanical vignetting on 8X10 with strong rise or tilt. All these are optically superb. The A and G are both close-range as well as infinity corrected, though the A is more contrasty - too much so for chromes like Velvia. All are hard-sharp, really crisp, so might not be ideal for portraiture, though this seems awful wide for that kind of use on 8x10.

[Sal Santamaura]

...the 250 G-Claron...Which G-Claron? :)

[Drew Wiley]

The in-shutter plasmat G. These were marketed for tabletop studio photography, but are superb at infinity too, and fairly resistant to flare despite the single coating. Unfortunately, the published image circle specs still have extremely stringent process camera standards in mind, and are considerably smaller than real-world general applications. In some extreme situations you might need to combine both front and back tilt to get optimal sharpness in the corners of big prints like 30x40 in, but most people would never notice.

[Drew Wiley]

The 250 G is essentially a 70-degree lens, while the 250/6.7 Fuji W is 80 degree. But at typical f/45 aperture, they're about equal coverage, along with the 240 Fuji A. You can't go wrong with any of them, and all are relatively light and portable due to small shutters.

[Sal Santamaura]

The 250 G is essentially a 70-degree lens...You must have missed my smiley. There never was a 250mm G-Claron. Perhaps you mean a 240mm G-Claron? :)

[Luis-F-S]

You must have missed my smiley. There never was a 250mm G-Claron. Perhaps you mean a 240mm G-Claron? :)

Naw, too busy expressing his vast knowledge about the 250 G-Claron. Some just run off at the keyboard without reading what they've typed, or what is being discussed. A 250 G-Claron, Really guys?

[Dan Fromm]

Close enough for government work, Luis.

[Tim V]

Thanks all for your replies, I've got a lot to think about. The thing that confuses me is that there are often many versions of a lens, with different specs, markings, etc. I read one thing and think, "Awesome, I'll look into that lens," then discover some small difference between models mentioned somewhere that makes me wonder what the hell I'm looking at...

So, do I take it from this thread that there's no love for the APO-Symmar or APO-Sironar N 72º?

[Drew Wiley]

There never was a 240 G-Claron either. It's actually 238.1, Mr. Nitpicky. I've only taken a thousand or so shots with the damn thing, so what do I know? Of course, I made sure to use a special matching Schneider loupe adjusted exactly 10.8 mm off, so that it focuses perfectly whenever I call it a 250 lens.��

[Drew Wiley]

Yes, you'll snag me on a minor math error, but that's to allow for the shim material on the base of the loupe.

[Tim V]

Is there a version of the G-Claron to look out for, with better IC etc?

[Drew Wiley]

Tim, I doubt anyone is looking down on either a Symmar or Sironar dubiously labeled Apo for marketing reasons. But they are big heavy studio plasmats in no.3 shutters, so don't appeal to outdoor shooters. And you need serious front standard support for heavy lenses. Even older 250 Symmar S lenses will work nicely on 8X10. True apo is another question and likely overkill; but the Fuji A would come closest. And somebody is probably willing to spend a ton of money on a late Sironar S. But will anyone ever notice the difference in a print? Actually, there isn't a Sironar N in 250 either - it's actually 231 mm, so everyone who owns one should be refunded for 19mm !

[Oren Grad]

So, do I take it from this thread that there's no love for the APO-Symmar or APO-Sironar N 72º?

Tim, over the years I've used many of the lens series that have been mentioned in this thread, several in 240 or 250 focal length while others in different FLs. G-Claron, Apo-Sironar-N/S/W, Apo-Symmar, Dagor, Docter Germinar W, Computar, Wide Field Ektar, Fujinon W - been there, done all of those.

My favorites of the lot are the Apo-Sironar-S and, secondarily, the Apo-Sironar-N; I just prefer the way they draw compared to the others. But I hasten to add that taste in drawing style is purely a subjective thing; you'll develop your own preferences as you gain experience with different lenses. The 240 Apo-Sironar-N is a fine lens and if I were on a tight budget I'd be happy with it, but when I was buying ~20 years ago I spent the extra for the Apo-Sironar-S - for my taste and my purposes the extra coverage makes a meaningful difference on 8x10 in the field. Yes, unfortunately it tends to be pretty pricey these days compared to what the 70-degree and 72-degree plasmats are going for.

I do still occasionally use some lenses other than the Rodenstocks - G-Claron, Computar, Docter Germinar W, Apo-Symmar - for specific purposes.

I'm not sure the long list of personal preferences that have been shared in this thread does you much good in narrowing down your choice. These are all optically competent lenses that can be used to make excellent pictures. My strongest advice would be just to buy something you can afford and are willing to carry, and have at it.

[Tim V]

Great, thanks Oren, I appreciate the sage advise.

I guess what confused me is Rodenstock's own spec sheet which says they recommend the APO-Sironar N lens for 5x7", not 8x10". I guess that's because the IC is well suited for big movements with 5x7", and more limited on 8x10". I suppose also I'm used to what would be considered in the world of 8x10" to be pretty extreme movements.

It's good to know that others use these lenses and are happy.

Is the APO-Symmar a little more clinical than the APO Sironar N?

THanks again,

Tim

[Drew Wiley]

The Germans tend to be hyper-conservative about product performance claims, even with woodworking equipment. The G-Claron spec sheet is so ridiculously conservative that probably nobody here who actually uses those lenses would take those IC specs seriously. "Rendering" is a more fluid concept. Right now I'm sitting beside several 30x40 framed Ciba prints on the wall taken with a Symmar S. My newer lenses are indeed sharper and more contrast, but I do love the gentler rendering of the ole Symmar.

[Oren Grad]

I guess what confused me is Rodenstock's own spec sheet which says they recommend the APO-Sironar N lens for 5x7", not 8x10". I guess that's because the IC is well suited for big movements with 5x7", and more limited on 8x10".

Yes, they're being conservative. The Apo-Sironar-N is definitely usable on 8x10, but if you're committed to a working style that routinely needs lots of movement on a lens with that wide a field of view on 8x10, the 72-degree plasmats like the Apo-Sironar-N or the Apo-Symmar will pinch a bit. But they're affordable, and a reasonable place to start. You may find that 8x10 is so different from what you're used to that you end up using it differently and developing different requirements than you would have expected from your smaller format experience.


Is the APO-Symmar a little more clinical than the APO Sironar N?

No, to my eye they're both thoroughly modern lenses, crisp and clean looking in the plane of focus. But they render focus transitions and OOF areas somewhat differently.

[Bernice Loui]

Selection of lenses for 8x10 does not really improve until 300mm or 12" focal length. Once at 12" - 300mm focal length the choices for lenses is better, once 19" or 480mm is reached, the choices again become limited by size, bulk, weight, cost.

As previously mentioned, there is a tendency to push specified image circles of a give lens to be used on a format size that is larger than designed or intended. Yes, the lens will illuminate out to the corners, but the image degradation be acceptable? Pushing a lens beyond it's designed image circle of definition could be OK, but not always.

For 8x10 contact prints, pushing the illumination circle of a lens might make zero difference, if the image is enlarged say 10x, then the image degradation might be much more important.

As for lens choices, it is much a matter of individual preference. For some nothing other than a modern lens with it's harder edge look will be acceptable, other gravitate towards a "groovy" personality and look of something like a Dagor or Kodak Ektar or Xenar.

IMO, best way to figure this out is to used the lenses for a long time for images in mind to decide the lens personality that fits best. There is no really correct or non-correct in these choices.

One reality of 8x10 is cost, there is no escaping the cost per sheet for 8x10. Lens choices is just one of the many cost of working with 8x10.


Bernice

[Tim V]

Yes, I'm used to LF materials costs. It costs $17NZD / $12.50USD to develop only one sheet of 4x5" C41 film in NZ, 8x10" is obviously on another level of insane.

With regards to the cost of equipment though, I'm used to spending big on RS lenses for digital MF capture. It's a mad, mad world of pain, for sure. Although still expensive, lens prices for 8x10" seem pretty reasonable in comparison.

Thanks again for all the advise, I've got a lot to research and think about.

Tim

[chris77]

very good thread.
i have been busy acquiring 'groovy lenses' dagor clarons, ektar, heliar. and i love them and how they render what i see.
but i have to say that i more and more often enjoy the clarity of a modern multicoated lens like the apo sironar n.
everything has its unique way, and taste is a really subjective thing. i would, like others before, recommend to buy what you can get for a good price and use it intensively, then move from there. anyway you cannot go wrong and the market is pretty steady.
chris

[John Kasaian]

very good thread.
i have been busy acquiring 'groovy lenses' dagor clarons, ektar, heliar. and i love them and how they render what i see.
but i have to say that i more and more often enjoy the clarity of a modern multicoated lens like the apo sironar n.
everything has its unique way, and taste is a really subjective thing. i would, like others before, recommend to buy what you can get for a good price and use it intensively, then move from there. anyway you cannot go wrong and the market is pretty steady.
chris

I agree!

It's a 240mm Zoo out there!
The OP might consider what features he's going to appreciate most in this new lens---
Size & weight? Speed? Multi- or single or no coating? Threaded for filters? Modern or vintage shutter? Price tag? Availability? Bokeh or ouchy sharpness? Convertible?

That might help with thinning out all the prospects, but there is something to be said for taking the first affordable lens in good condition that crosses your path and running with it

https://youtu.be/ADPgTmca6Zs

[Corran]

One reality of 8x10 is cost, there is no escaping the cost per sheet for 8x10.

One nice thing about 8x10 is the option to shoot x-ray film without having to cut it down as you would for 4x5 or 5x7. While there are of course some limitations and a slight learning curve, the ability to shoot 8x10 at a cheaper price per image than normal 4x5 film is pretty nice.

[Drew Wiley]

Image circles are often standardized at f/22, whereas most 8x10 work is done at smaller apertures with inherently bigger image circles. For example, right now I'm looking at the G-Claron spec sheet which would make you think that only the 355 would be usable on 8x10 with any significant movement at all. But I've used the 240 with 2 inches of rise and no apparent compromise in the corners at all. And I'm talking about large prints. Their big studio plasmats tend to have even more coverage, whether Schneider, Rodenstock, Nikon, or Fuji. These aren't wide angle lenses suitable for extreme architectural rise, but don't have that kind of distortion either. They're going to be a compromise - but so what - it's a big piece of film! How huge are you going to print anyway? I almost laugh when I read debates over this kind of thing when someone ends up publishing a magazine photo smaller than the original film itself.

[Bernice Loui]

Now we are venturing into the often nasty _ _ _ _ about diffraction and it's effects on image quality. Modern lenses are spec'ed at f22, designed and intended to be used this way. Idea being LF film images is much about every part of the image being "sharp". It is also why aperture blades on many modern shutters are not round. Early on in my LF endeavors, this was the orthodoxy adopted as preached by Group f64.. This coupled with the hard-edge high contrast, "poke-viewer-in the eye with high contrast hard hitting images" came into fashion resulted in the style of optics that was designed in more recent times. This is what the market wanted to meet the image fashion expectations that has become the common today.

At some point, it became apparent to me this is too limiting as smaller format, video, filmmaking large aperture lenses offered image possibilities that easily go beyond the "everything sharp" ideology.

Turns out, the previous generation of LF image makers, optics designers understood this well. As the journey into vintage optics progressed, it resulted in my dumping of all modern Plasmat LF lenses and replacing them with lenses like Xenar, Kodak Ektar, Dagor (really f16 and smaller), Angulon and etc.. All have nice round apertures and produce pleasing transitions from in to out of focus. Camera movements possible on a view camera adds to the ability to control areas of focus difficult to impossible on smaller fixed lens-image recording cameras. Add to this the idea of stopping down only as much as needed. This often results in using apertures not smaller than f22 on 5x7, often f8 to f16 where vintage lenses like Kodak Ektar, Xenar and similar Tessar formulations work well. Combined with camera movement adds to the ability to use larger apertures. At these larger apertures, focus is critical, film flatness is important, camera stability and precision is important. This often results in higher definition where the lens has been precisely focused.

The lenses that get the f16-f32 treatment are modern wide angle lenses. These are the exceptions as they are designed and produce their best work at these smaller apertures.

There is also an entire universe of soft focus lenses which are a topic all to their own.

This methodology and idea of making LF images is very much an individual choice as with camera, optics and finished print making choices.


Bernice



Image circles are often standardized at f/22, whereas most 8x10 work is done at smaller apertures with inherently bigger image circles. For example, right now I'm looking at the G-Claron spec sheet which would make you think that only the 355 would be usable on 8x10 with any significant movement at all. But I've used the 240 with 2 inches of rise and no apparent compromise in the corners at all. And I'm talking about large prints. Their big studio plasmats tend to have even more coverage, whether Schneider, Rodenstock, Nikon, or Fuji. These aren't wide angle lenses suitable for extreme architectural rise, but don't have that kind of distortion either. They're going to be a compromise - but so what - it's a big piece of film! How huge are you going to print anyway? I almost laugh when I read debates over this kind of thing when someone ends up publishing a magazine photo smaller than the original film itself.

[Bernice Loui]

Which can be cut down to two sheets of 5x7, or two images for the cost of one.
Mostly given up on 4x5 as this film format is just not big enough to produce the image quality expected. 8x10 is too big for a host of reasons beyond film cost.


Bernice



One nice thing about 8x10 is the option to shoot x-ray film without having to cut it down as you would for 4x5 or 5x7. While there are of course some limitations and a slight learning curve, the ability to shoot 8x10 at a cheaper price per image than normal 4x5 film is pretty nice.

[Corran]

Some of us don't have the gear, time, or inclination to cut down film. I disagree with you wholeheartedly about 4x5.

[Bernice Loui]

I'm down to two film types HP5 & FP4. Image making has been centered around these two film types.
Did one box of efke 5x7, the pin holes were atrocious. Not curious about different film types anymore.

As for 4x5 being too small, really an image expectation item. After a few thousand sheets of 4x5 combined color negative, color transparency, B&W... then prints, just will not do. This IS an individual opinion, nothing more, nothing less.



Bernice




Some of us don't have the gear, time, or inclination to cut down film. I disagree with you wholeheartedly about 4x5.

[Drew Wiley]

Bernice - I both agree with you and disagree with you, which makes me a lens schizophrenic. Right now I've got two very different 360's in my 8x10 pack - one hard-sharp and the other a sharp but otherwise dreamy barrel tessar, with lovely out of focus background rendering. One shoe does not fit all.

[Bernice Loui]

Precisely it Drew... One shoe never fits all.

But once the best fitting shoe is found one tends to wear that shoes most often... These shoes may never fit other feet at all.



Bernice



Bernice - I both agree with you and disagree with you, which makes me a lens schizophrenic. Right now I've got two very different 360's in my 8x10 pack - one hard-sharp and the other a sharp but otherwise dreamy barrel tessar, with lovely out of focus background rendering. One shoe does not fit all.

[ic-racer]

Thanks all for your replies, I've got a lot to think about. The thing that confuses me is that there are often many versions of a lens, with different specs, markings, etc. I read one thing and think, "Awesome, I'll look into that lens," then discover some small difference between models mentioned somewhere that makes me wonder what the hell I'm looking at...

So, do I take it from this thread that there's no love for the APO-Symmar or APO-Sironar N 72º?

You might want to collect the literature on a single brand of lens. Get to know the variations that way. To know all the variations of all the lens manufacturers would be a life's work.

For example:
http://www.galerie-photo.com/manuels/nikkor-lenses-for-large-format%20cameras.pdf
http://www.kennethleegallery.com/pdf/Nikkor_LargeFormatLenses.pdf
http://www.nicovandijk.net/largeformat.htm
https://static.bhphotovideo.com/FrameWork/Product_Resources/SourceBookProPhoto/Section04LgFormatLenses.pdf

etc...

[DG 3313]

I have the APO-Symmar 210 and Sironar-N 210 and love them both. The N is sharper but, will not cover 8x10 the way I use it. The APO-Symmar IC won't cover 8x10 unless you rack out the bellows just a little. I have used the APO-Symmar for 2 years on my old 8X10 and it is my go to lens for WA.

I own a 9.5" Dagor but, it's a barrel and I use it in front of a Sinar shutter on a 4x5 camera.

The only thing most people on this forum agree on is............we do not all agree on anything. That's the cool thing about getting to read both sides of the page. Happy hunting.

[Alan Gales]

The only thing most people on this forum agree on is............we do not all agree on anything. That's the cool thing about getting to read both sides of the page. Happy hunting.

Yep, if we all agreed on everything it would make for a pretty boring forum! ;)

Probably, boring photographs too!

Here is a cute photo of Bernice's cat. Now here is a photo of Drew's cat. Let's see, same lighting, same pose, looks to be shot with the same lens too. You know what? Drew's cat looks a lot like Bernice's cat!

[Drew Wiley]

Cats plural. Indoors flame-tip white blue-eyedtwins from the neighbors woodpile. Most of the porch ones have passed on, including their deadbeat white daddy and Siamese mom who preferred to shack up in the greenhouse sleeping with a possum.

[Alan Gales]

Cats plural. Indoors flame-tip white blue-eyedtwins from the neighbors woodpile. Most of the porch ones have passed on, including their deadbeat white daddy and Siamese mom who preferred to shack up in the greenhouse sleeping with a possum.

;)

[Bernice Loui]

Then, Mr. Raccoon appears :eek:

Bernice



Cats plural. Indoors flame-tip white blue-eyedtwins from the neighbors woodpile. Most of the porch ones have passed on, including their deadbeat white daddy and Siamese mom who preferred to shack up in the greenhouse sleeping with a possum.

[Drew Wiley]

Yep. One of em killed the possum after multiple warnings. We had a family of racoons, and the young ones were almost tame, but then some thug racoons showed up and they joined gangs. Meanwhile we removed all the ivy patches where they nested and hunted for snails, prior to house painting and a new fence, so now only get coons visiting once in awhile at the porch water bowl. The antics I've seen racoons do over the years are almost unbelievable.

[John Kasaian]

Yep. One of em killed the possum after multiple warnings. We had a family of racoons, and the young ones were almost tame, but then some thug racoons showed up and they joined gangs. Meanwhile we removed all the ivy patches where they nested and hunted for snails, prior to house painting and a new fence, so now only get coons visiting once in awhile at the porch water bowl. The antics I've seen racoons do over the years are almost unbelievable.

Were the thug raccoons from Richmond?

[Drew Wiley]

Hard to say. Unlike deer, coyotes, cougars, and turkeys, racoons, skunks, and possums use freeway overpasses, and obviously get run over frequently. Most freeway shootings have been between a Vallejo gang and a rival Richmond gang of different ethnicity. Since racoons are furry, you'd have to shave em to identify their gang tattoos. But since they routinely wear eye masks, I'd guess they're more into residential burglary than drug distribution. They certainly like stealing the neighbors' chicken eggs. They used to hold wild frat parties on my roof.

[Bernice Loui]

From the Poor Side of Town...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BC-l0uqxoZ4


Bernice


Were the thug raccoons from Richmond?

[Drew Wiley]

I always tell people there's a bad side of the tracks, and a worse side! Stereotypes. Most of these cities are economically split. There are plenty of multi-millionaires in Richmond, probably a billionaire or two. Infamous Oakland does have entire neighborhoods equivalent to a war zone; but over half the city is very wealthy and uppity. SF has very dangerous neighborhoods that most tourists don't even know exist. But youth being lured into street gangs is always sad. One of those teenage racoons would come up and wiggle my big toe, or do a chin-up on the mailbox and tap on the window hoping for a snack. The the older racoons from the bad side of the tracks showed up, and his own life of crime began. Now he's probably a fugitive hiding in some culvert.

[Luis-F-S]

We're supposed to be talking about frigging 240 lenses for 8x10. Are all of you that desperate to hear yourselves heard? Must be pretty sad.....

[Drew Wiley]

You're right. Racoons actually paint black around their eyes to help block glare coming thru the groundglass.